ORDER:

The present Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2023 in I.A.No.318 of 2021 in O.S.No.12 of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.12 of 2014 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothavalasa, which has been filed for permanent injunction.

3. In the said Suit, the present Interlocutory Application vide I.A.No.318 of 2021 has been filed by the Respondent 1 & 2 under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 28 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice praying the Court below to amend the written statement by deleting para 3 from 19th line to till the end of para and paras 4 and 5 of the written statement in O.S.No.12 of 2014 and to add the matter in the petition as para 4 of the written statement.

4. To the said Application, the petitioner/plaintiff filed his counter opposing the said Application on the ground that it was filed belatedly though suit is pending since 2014 and if the said amendment is allowed, it will cause serious prejudice to the plaintiff.

5. After hearing both sides, the Court below has allowed the said I.A. permitting the respondents to amend the written statement under its order dated 03.01.2023. Against the said order, the present Revision is filed.

6. Heard Sri K. Gani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds contended that, the Court below erroneously allowed the Application, without considering contentions of the plaintiff that, if the said amendment is allowed, the nature of the suit will be changed and the defendant cannot be allowed to take different and inconsistent defence to that pleaded in the original written statement and that too, in a suit filed in the year 2014, this application is filed belatedly, after commencement of trial. Therefore, prayed to allow the Revision Petition.

8. Perused the Record.

9. It is settled principle of law that the defendant can take any number of inconsistent pleas he wants to take. If written statement is amended, the nature of the suit will not be changed. Further, when the matter is posted for trial, the said Application seems to have been filed. While addressing this contention, the Court below categorically stated that, the defendants did not take any inconsistent pleas in the amendment and the same will not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff and further rightly observed that, in order to prove their case the defendants have to produce evidence, otherwise their case will not stand.

The Apex Court also in Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh1 held that Courts should be extremely liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings and it is also held that defendant can take any number of inconsistent pleas in his written statement. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:

“16. This being the position, we are therefore of the view that inconsistent pleas can be raised by the defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of plaint. In Modi Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co.Ltd., v. Ladha Ram & Co2. this principle has been enunciated by this Court in which it has been clearly laid down that inconsistent or alternative pleas can be made in the written statement. Accordingly, the High Court and the trial

1 2006 5 SC 943

2 (1976) 4 SCC 320

court had gone wrong in holding that the defendant-appellants are not allowed to take inconsistent pleas in their defence.”

10. On a perusal of the impugned order and in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case cited supra, this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order and further, no valid grounds are raised by the petitioner, warranting interference of this Court.

Accordingly, the Revision